CompaRNA - on-line benchmarks of RNA structure prediction methods
Home

Methods
Datasets
Rankings
RNA 2D Atlas

Help
FAQ

Contact us
RSS feeds
Twitter

Table of contents:

  1. Overview

  2. Performance Plots

  3. Performance of Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for Contrafold & NanoFolder [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Contrafold NanoFolder
MCC 0.761 > 0.562
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.821 ± 0.123 > 0.702 ± 0.166
Sensitivity 0.756 > 0.656
Positive Predictive Value 0.775 > 0.495
Total TP 220 > 191
Total TN 16902 > 16800
Total FP 100 < 228
Total FP CONTRA 18 < 73
Total FP INCONS 46 < 122
Total FP COMP 36 > 33
Total FN 71 < 100
P-value 2.9966815982e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Contrafold and NanoFolder. Positive Predictive Value (PPV) is plotted against sensitivity. Each dot represents a single test of each method. See tables below for raw data (individual counts for Contrafold and NanoFolder).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Contrafold and NanoFolder. The whiskers correspond to 95% confidence intervals (CIs). 'n' denotes the number of MCCs used to calculate average MCCs and CIs. See tables below for raw data (individual counts for Contrafold and NanoFolder).

^top





Performance of Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 220
Total TN 16902
Total FP 100
Total FP CONTRA 18
Total FP INCONS 46
Total FP COMP 36
Total FN 71
Total Scores
MCC 0.761
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.821 ± 0.123
Sensitivity 0.756
Positive Predictive Value 0.775
Nr of predictions 17

^top



2. Individual counts for Contrafold [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.46 0.39 0.58 7 516 5 3 2 0 11
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.88 0.90 0.87 26 2410 11 0 4 7 3
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 2 0 0 2 0
2LWK_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 196 1 0 0 1 0
3J16_L 0.55 0.57 0.55 12 1137 10 3 7 0 9
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.81 0.77 0.85 17 1256 5 0 3 2 5
3UZL_B 0.90 0.88 0.93 14 1278 8 0 1 7 2
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A1C_3 0.81 0.81 0.81 30 2726 10 0 7 3 7
4A1C_2 0.21 0.25 0.19 5 4489 33 9 13 11 15
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.53 0.52 0.56 15 1410 13 3 9 1 14
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 1 0 0 1 4

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 191
Total TN 16800
Total FP 228
Total FP CONTRA 73
Total FP INCONS 122
Total FP COMP 33
Total FN 100
Total Scores
MCC 0.562
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.702 ± 0.166
Sensitivity 0.656
Positive Predictive Value 0.495
Nr of predictions 17

^top



2. Individual counts for NanoFolder [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.54 0.61 0.50 11 506 11 1 10 0 7
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.26 0.34 0.21 10 2392 41 15 23 3 19
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 3 0 0 3 0
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 2 0 0 2 1
3J16_L 0.43 0.52 0.37 11 1129 19 8 11 0 10
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.77 0.91 0.67 20 1246 12 6 4 2 2
3UZL_B 0.41 0.56 0.31 9 1264 25 10 10 5 7
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A1C_3 0.58 0.68 0.51 25 2714 24 9 15 0 12
4A1C_2 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 4469 61 18 29 14 20
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.39 0.41 0.39 12 1406 20 4 15 1 17
4ENC_A 0.66 0.73 0.61 11 478 9 2 5 2 4

^top


Matthews Correlation Coeffient, Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Value have been calculated based on the paper by Gardener & Giegerich, 2004.